This user believes in the right for every American citizen to keep and bear arms... as outlined by the Second Amendment.

Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but I'll use it.

I was born on October 25, 1988 in Jacksonville, Florida and raised there until we moved to Middleburg, Florida while I was still in elementary. The Lord blesses me with a Christian father, an own-way mother and three younger brothers, one of which suffers from autism.

I'm also a light-green, free-market environmentalist, an artist, a writer and adopting a lacto-vegetarian diet. While bisexual, having quit such activities but still having an attraction for both genders, I am currently going through therapy to resolve the latter.

Sequence of Thought

An unshakeable foundation is the only place to start building your beliefs. After seventeen years of setting bricks upon quicksand, you can probably understand the devastation and anger of it finally sinking on me. In any case, I’ve learned that fundamentals play a large part on most of the points of our lives. For instance, being an Agnostic, it opened up a path of morality and falsehood, including the act of accepting bisexuality as ethically correct.

The only way I understand how to come to this conclusion is to resort to things I know are unquestionable truths. Among those who understand the impossibility of pure objective reasoning within humans, this may sound arrogant, but please consider that this is my user page and, if I truly believe something, I will write it as a fact. However, I’m always up for listening to different points of view and will attempt to have an unbiased opinion on actual articles.

Note that we have matter and energy. Those two cannot, by the scientific laws of conservation, appear or disappear from reality.

By those two things, we have many systems. According to the Law of Entropy, the systems could not have developed or evolved on their own.

The same can be said for the Law of Biogenesis which, while already stating that life cannot come from inanimate objects, the Law of Entropy supports that life cannot evolve. The probability of such happening is beyond the accepted statistic in mathematics for impossibility.

Mathematical reasonsing, astronomy and the Law of Entropy disprove evolution both by means of time, current state and, of course, the inability to gain the new data needed for trans-species evolution.

Now using all that above, a deity created everything. Having made everything, it must be omniscient, since it knows the ins and outs of everything by the rules it placed upon everything. Regarding time, such a deity must be omnipotent, above the laws of nature, or else it would have decayed to nothing already. It also would not have evolved; it had to be self-sufficient always. Being omnipotent, one could say the deity transcends the three dimensions and therefore is also omnipresent.

Meaning of Life

(Keep in mind that this is my thought pattern. While I don’t mind questions to help my own outlook, this is not to say that there is no other line of thought, just none that I have yet to perceive.)

The question has been asked repetatively. The only way to solve this is to look at the deity. Since the deity is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, what does it have to gain by making us? If it is omniscient, it already knows everything, so it’s not to learn something new--as there is nothing new to it. If it is omnipotent, we have no power to give to it that it doesn’t have. If it is omnipresent, our presence is not required.

What else is it? It is the original, the standard, and the only source of right and wrong. Like truth cannot contain even a small lie or, by essence, it is no longer truth, its goodness cannot also be evil. Simply the idea that there is good and evil proves that these rules exist in some fashion. The only thing I can think of is a philosophical argument: We should exalt what is good, including the origin of goodness.

Why can’t such a being praise itself? I’m sure it can. Couldn’t it have another all-perfect being, if it’s lonely? Sure but, taking into account what the deity is, another being made purely good and of the same omniscient mind would just be the same being in another form. So, something else would have to be made, something without the same mindset. The only thing that can have such a mindset is one that is evil in some way.

Why would having something evil glorify what is good? By comparison? Simply the definitions of those do that. If something is forced to be evil, isn’t its obedience good? So it must have freewill, but, if the deity is omniscient and omnipotent, it purposely made a creation that would become evil. Doesn’t this mean that the creator is responsible and the creation is not at fault?

Yes and no. The creator is in control and responsible, but not at fault; the creation is. What the creator decides to do is good, it because created all the rules for itself and follows all the rules for itself, because its nature is constantly good. What about the nature of the creation? Originally, it would have had to have a pure, since conceptual evil was present but not physical evil. So why couldn’t the creation follow in the creator’s footsteps and avoid evil?

The only thing I can think of it not having absolute understanding, omniscience. Ignorance of the law, does not mean innocence. However, the deity already supports what is good and wants it glorified, so wouldn’t it tell the creation to do just that? Even so, what if the creation had known just that and not the entire context of the law?

Going on, revering the deity, comes from “exalting what is good,” which also means to adore the creation. Perhaps the creation, not able to distinguish the order of praise with its own limited understanding, made the mistake of worshipping itself over the creator by believing that its own choices dictated its nature, rather than the nature given to it as dictating its choices. Maybe people today do this and do not recognize that their desires aren’t always their choices.

So now what? It made evil choices and is tainted to have an evil nature. How is this exalting goodness or the origin of goodness? That’s just it. Goodness, the deity, must overcome the evil.

Then why not just do it? This doesn’t mean undoing the evil act, since by doing so would be making it nonexistent. What would be the purpose? It means undoing the evil nature, but destroying it? Sure and perhaps it has, but that would destroy the creature and is that all the creator intended?

Are the laws of nature and this transcendent being all that is? Yes.

No, this isn’t some pessimistic outlook on the world; that’s actually how I was as an Agnostic, before I was a Theist looking for truth. Laws are one thing, but by definition there is also charity, giving something beneficial to a person who doesn’t deserve it. By giving some sort of pardon, the deity just gave something that only it could give, but that still keeps evil around, so how did the deity conquer evil entirely?

I think omnipotence would surely just remove the creation’s entire being, since the corruption is in the very nature of it. How about purifying rather than destroying? That means the creator would have to protect the creation in some way, correcting instead of removing. This is definitely a possibility, though leaves me confused on how it would do so. Perhaps by instilling its own nature into the creation, while still allowing the limited knowledge, thought pattern and choices to the creation.

Had to Know

If a creation had to know of the deity to properly glorify it, someone would had to have known. Would that be where it ended? No, because the challenge to properly glorify the good deity is ongoing with our presence. There should be some evidence that a person had the ability to go search for, even if it was crossing the sea and going through the desert to find it. It should be available today as well, especially since exploration and communication have developed.

This wasn’t originally my standpoint when I went looking at the religions and finally the Faith. After having all of my beliefs knocked out from under me, I had lost the little purpose I had in life: To live it up. I don’t know about anyone else, but if there is a key piece missing I will keep asking and asking and asking for the truth because it eats and eats and eats at me until I do. That’s why I originally looked, but an urge isn’t enough of an explanation so that above is some thoughts more on it.

What I did and still do believe, is that such a book would have to be pure or at least with solid evidence available to those that would look so they would know which parts were pure. I don’t mean drastic corruption, but almost inconspicuous. A being that ultimately can purify nature could certainly keep the holy book from corruption to the point of no return.

Foundation: Word of God

It took two years, going through several religions that first qualified by having a “holy book” and not contradicting it or the qualifications for the deity stated above, until finally reading Christianity. I had held off from it because I was afraid that, because it was popular, especially in the United States, that it would be assumed that I took to it because everyone else around me was Christian. That’s far from the truth. With nineteen years of an unbelieving lifestyle, you can bet that I managed to find the few Atheists, Deists and Wiccans and so on in my area, and surround myself with them, because I had no one else to relate to. Even now my understanding is at odds with most of my family and many other self-proclaimed Christians.

In any case, Christianity held up to all the conditions I had wanted, where the religions had failed. The Bible contained further scientific evidence that I had not even heard about before, but I guess that’s understandable. Darwinism Under the Microscope was five-years old when I first read it.

Walls: Law of the Land and Family Honor

God is sovereign over all (2Ch 20:6). He places up the governments (Gen 45:8). He tells us to honor our parents. He tells us to respect our spouses (Gen 3:16, Eph 5:28). Finally, He tells us that He has given us the ability to discern (1Ki 3:9).

Stones: United States Constitution

“

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

”

The Lord says that He placed the power of the government into their hands (Acts 17:26), so their laws are lawful unto their people, even if it isn't to Christ. He gave them power over our flesh, but not the spirit, since no man has power over the latter (Mat 22:21).

Some may think of the government's officials as the Law of the Land, such as congressmen, senators, judges and the president. They, however, obey, or should obey, the United States Constitution, despite the fact that the Constitution was created and adopted illegally, though it was eventually ratified by the rest of the states.

Some would say that we are under the fallacious claim that the Constitution is open to interpretation. It is no more swayed by the whims of society than the Bible. It's to say that, if you told me you did not like blackberries, my interpretation that you are a racist holds more value than your own intentions behind it, that you don't like the plant or the food it produces. The Forefathers were profuse writers and one had only go searching to find their opinions on such matters.

As soon as that is put to rest, someone might immediately claim that it is impractical, impossible to achieve, or that the human race's has progressed far beyond the need for such. The belief that obeying the Founding Fathers' political standing as detrimental can be easily explained, depending on the various subjects. The belief that such changes will never happen is more based upon opinion, and sometimes pessimism, rather than mathematical reasoning. To the last, do you think that eighteenth-century New Yorkers would just walk by a dying man on the street, like the recent event? Maybe they are talking about technology, not morality. Technology may have advanced, but the human brain's capacity for knowledge has not, especially the general population.

After all that, I would qualify myself as a paleoconservative, paleolibertarian or somewhere between them. The party that I most support is the Boston Tea Party, though I would prefer one that gives thanks to the Lord like the Constitution Party's platform. The laws of the land don't conquer the Word of God, but rather should be in compliance. The laws that a Christian has reason for overthrowing should be if it says not to praise the Lord. Considering that the Constitution is the law of the land for American Christians and it does not contain that law against Christianity, they should also defend it and that is the only other reason for revolution. Because of it's illegal birth, I support any attempt to turn it back into a federation.

Mortar: Parents, Spouse and In-Laws

“

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

”

He appointed those men of the government over our parents and spouse, so they must also obey the government, as we should, second to God (Exo 18:21). The parents have secondary physical power, and we are to obey them after the Lord and government, unless we become married, in which case it is our spouse we must obey before the parents (Gen 2:24).

Roof: Moral Code

“

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

”

In cases where there is either no biblical reference or specific biblical understanding, and no government laws, the Lord has given us discernment.